Abstract
In the Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian we find a presentation of a theory of the virtues of eloquence: purity of language (latinitas), clarity (perspicuitas), appropriateness (aptum) and ornament (ornatus). All of them were originated by earlier Greek philosophers Aristotle and Theophrastus. Later this theory was taken on and elaborated by Roman rhetoricians – Cicero and Quintilian. Aristotle in his Rhetoric explicitly identified three of the four virtues (clarity, appropriateness and correctness). Theophrastus created a theory of four virtues of eloquence (correctness, clarity, appropriateness and ornament). His system was adopted by most of others. Dionysius, however, developed the most complex system of virtues. He presented a theory of virtues, which were divided into necessary (purity of language, appropriateness, lucidity and brevity) and accessory ones. The accessory virtues were further subdivided into another three groups. Rhetorica ad Herennium offered a three fold system: elegantia (including both correctness and clarity), compositio (similar to appropriateness) and diginitas (similar to ornament). Basically, in almost all aspects being closer to Cicero (who continues the tradition of Theophrastus), Quintilian is more focused on his theory of eloquence. He discusses the virtues of eloquence very widely and deeply, step by step, drawing a number of examples and including the educational process of an orator. Above all, although the theory of four virtues of Quintilian has been influenced by Ciceron, to some extent in general it does not claim originality and plays a paramount role in modern rhetorics, stylistic and pedagogy.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
-
Vytautas Bikulčius,
Pažadėtosios žemės motyvas Antonine’os Maillet romane “Pelaži vežėčios”
,
Literatūra: Vol. 48 No. 4 (2006): World Literatures
-
Audronė Kučinskienė,
Cicero’s Forth Philippic: monologue into dialogue
,
Literatūra: Vol. 49 No. 3 (2007): the Classics
-
Paulius Subačius,
The Problem of Polytext
,
Literatūra: Vol. 49 No. 5 (2007): Special Issue
-
Paulius Jevsejevas,
Enunciative Meaning-Making in Vizijos by Vytautas Mačernis
,
Literatūra: Vol. 64 No. 1 (2022): Literatūra
-
Alexander Markov,
Scenery by M. V. Dobuzhinsky as a Version of Pushkin Studies
,
Literatūra: Vol. 62 No. 2 (2020): Rusistica Vilnensis
-
Мария Лоскутникова,
Мотив другого в романе Ивана Гончарова «Обрыв» (в свете становления функциональных особенностей мотива в трилогии писателя)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 54 No. 2 (2012): Russian Literature
-
Galina Mikhailova,
On Some Features of Osip Mandelstam’s Representation in the Memories by Anna Akhmatova
,
Literatūra: Vol. 62 No. 2 (2020): Rusistica Vilnensis
-
Tomas Andriukonis,
Baranauskų Silva rerum
,
Literatūra: Vol. 54 No. 1 (2012): Lithuanian Literature
-
Gediminas Mikelaitis,
Literatūros teologija: identiteto paieškos
,
Literatūra: Vol. 48 No. 5 (2006): Special Issue
-
Vytautas Ališauskas,
Holy Letters among Barbarian Peoples
,
Literatūra: Vol. 54 No. 3 (2012): the Classics